D&D 5E Persuade, Intimidate, and Deceive used vs. PCs

[JediGamemaster]

Well, it's all written 2nd person ("you") and this is the Player's handbook, not the NPC's handbook, so....

But more seriously, I agree with pukuni about interpretation but disagree you are doing it "wrong". Just differently.

well I like talking to you because you realize that in an RPG there is no real right or wrong way to play... but yea I just don't get where some posters get the "here is how it is" that isn't in the book, I mean I understand your way and would use it if I had been with a group it works with... I also use the skills if it's a group It works with

 

[JediGamemaster]

Not according to the interpretation he posted. He said that a successful Intimidate check imposes the Frightened condition. So it's basically a free Fear spell usable at will by all PCs and NPCs. A rogue with expertise could really wreak havoc with this.

I'm not saying I would use that everywhere, or even most times... but I could totally see it with the right concept in the right game

 

[iserith]

can someone find me this rule in the books

Well, it's all written 2nd person ("you") and this is the Player's handbook, not the NPC's handbook, so....

But more seriously, I agree with pukuni about interpretation but disagree you are doing it "wrong". Just differently.

The section on ability checks does specifically refer to their use with both characters and monsters.

However, when the Basic Rules are taken as a whole, one must take into account this very important section (page 66) in my view:

"Roleplaying is, literally, the act of playing out a role. In this case, it’s you as a player determining how your character thinks, acts, and talks."

So if the orc tries to grapple a PC, it might be time for a Strength (Athletics) check. When the githzerai monk tries to back-flip to the high ground for follow-up attack with advantage, a Dexterity check might be good here to resolve any uncertainty. If the ogre tries to intimidate the cowardly goblins into charging the PCs who just routed them, a Charisma (Intimidation) check might be a good choice.

But when it comes to deceiving, intimidating, or persuading a character, I have to take into consideration that part from page 66. And since the player determines with certainty how a character thinks, acts, and talks, it's up to the player to say how the character responds to my description of the deception, intimidation, or persuasion.

 

[JediGamemaster]

The section on ability checks does specifically refer to their use with both characters and monsters.

witch is the basis for my entire 3e and 5e game style

However, when the Basic Rules are taken as a whole, one must take into account this very important section (page 66) in my view:

I understand where you like to read it/play it that way I even understand you can make an argument for it, but do you see that both readings are valid?

But when it comes to deceiving, intimidating, or persuading a character, I have to take into consideration that part from page 66. And since the player determines with certainty how a character thinks, acts, and talks, it's up to the player to say how the character responds to my description of the deception, intimidation, or persuasion.

The thing is I don't think using a skill to give the player something to play off of takes away there ability to think act or talk... they still think what they want, act as they want and say what they want but with the added information of "x roll of intimidate" I can't imagin a scenero I would actually run or roll that would take away your ability to act think or talk as you want

 

[iserith]

I understand where you like to read it/play it that way I even understand you can make an argument for it, but do you see that both readings are valid?

No, I don't think your interpretation is valid in so far as the rules are concerned. However, if you and your players like to play that way, what I think is irrelevant. After all, the rules aren't in charge of the game - the DM is.

The thing is I don't think using a skill to give the player something to play off of takes away there ability to think act or talk... they still think what they want, act as they want and say what they want but with the added information of "x roll of intimidate" I can't imagin a scenero I would actually run or roll that would take away your ability to act think or talk as you want

When you tell a player that his or her character is intimidated, persuaded, or that the character believes someone's lie, you're telling the player how the character acts and/or thinks. I describe the environment - the deceptive wererat, the inveigling concubine, the aggressive brute. Then it's up to the players to describe what they want to do. No roll is necessary here in my view, especially if, as you say, it has no tangible effect on the character.

 

[JediGamemaster]

No, I don't think your interpretation is valid

that is why your wrong here

When you tell a player that his or her character is intimidated, persuaded, or that the character believes someone's lie, you're telling the player how the character acts and/or thinks.

no I'm not... stop saying that... I have not told anyone how to think or act they used a skill or a skill was used on them and this is what happened.

I describe the environment -

me too

the deceptive wererat, the inveigling concubine, the aggressive brute. Then it's up to the players to describe what they want to do.

I agree

No roll is necessary here in my view, especially if, as you say, it has no tangible effect on the character.

why would you need an effect, the whole thing is role played you just need a roll to see. It isn't "How well I can describe the orc" it's "The character (PC or NPC) in game has a skill and is using it."

 

[Pauln6]

I think skill checks should apply against PCs - they are effectively non-magical saving throws. Otherwise it's no wonder that some players bleat on about how mental stats are dump stats for non-casters (except insofar as wisdom applies to perception and saves). A dumb PC is not as smart as his player. A cowardly PC is not as brave as his player. The stats and skill traning should mean something.

HOWEVER - I don't think a skill check should make a PC behave contrary to established parameters and personality so a brave warrior should not run screaming from a halfling who rolled a 20; a gay PC should not be seduced by a member of the opposite sex etc. The DMG suggests degrees of success depending on the circumstances and players should be willing to work with their DM to role play within those parameters. It's collaborative storytelling so collaborate.

 

[JediGamemaster]

I think skill checks should apply against PCs - they are effectively non-magical saving throws. Otherwise it's no wonder that some players bleat on about how mental stats are dump stats for non-casters (except insofar as wisdom applies to perception and saves). A dumb PC is not as smart as his player. A cowardly PC is not as brave as his player. The stats and skill traning should mean something.

HOWEVER - I don't think a skill check should make a PC behave contrary to established parameters and personality so a brave warrior should not run screaming from a halfling who rolled a 20; a gay PC should not be seduced by a member of the opposite sex etc. The DMG suggests degrees of success depending on the circumstances and players should be willing to work with their DM to role play within those parameters. It's collaborative storytelling so collaborate.

I endorse everything in this post... very elegant and to the point... thank you

 

[Bawylie]

This is an interesting discussion.

I agree with the principle that players determine how their characters think, act, & feel. As such, I typically refrain from telling them what they think, how they act, or how they feel. Likewise, I tend to avoid using Deception checks, Intimidation Checks, Persuasion checks, etc., against the PCs unless in some kind of contested action.

And I tend to resolve PvP in the following way: When one player takes an action against another player, it is up to the recipient of that action to determine the result of the action. I do this because I feel PvP is a huge waste of time unless it's something the players are very interested in hashing out. This permits them to engage with it as much or as little as they wish. This is not a matter of "how the world works" it's a metagame concern over how I want my table to run and how much time I wish to spend on particular activities.

Now there are some exceptions to how I treat the thoughts, feelings, and actions of PCs. These exceptions happen when I'm framing a new scene or concluding one.

For instance, I like to use mood-setting words in my descriptions. (Spooky, disgusting, lovely, comforting, dreadful, etc, etc). While these don't really say "you do/must feel this way" they do set an expectation. I have no problem with this.

And also when concluding a scene, I have from time to time taken some amount of control over PC actions. For instance, "You spend the rest of the afternoon questioning the prisoner. After learning X Y & Z, it is clear you've gotten everything you can get out of him. You leave to meet up with everyone else at dinner and discuss your findings..." I have no problem with this either.

And again, the reason I DONT object to these (intrusions?) on player agency is because they're used in the service of moving along the game. Time is our currency, I don't want to be wasteful with it. And I generally won't permit it to be monopolized or spent by one player at the expense of other players.

That said, I don't tell the players how their characters feel or act or think during a scene or encounter. That strikes me as unfairly infringing on their bit of the game. And i "get" very little from it.

So for me, this isn't a black and white issue. But it's 45% black, 45% white, and 10% gray. And while I'll bend a little in the gray, I will try to do so with a fairly light touch or in the service of moving on to the next interesting and playable bit.

 

[Pauln6]

I have played a game called Other Worlds where the players can be asked to decide on the effects of success or failure themselves before making the roll. It's surprisingly effective and fun.